Programme result baselines and targets - a glimpse into the future Annual Conference of the Northern Periphery and Arctic Programme 30 th of September 2015, Kuopio/Finland

The Northern Periphery in 2023? Annual Conference of the Northern Periphery and Arctic Programme 2/11

Rationale Annual Conference of the Northern Periphery and Arctic Programme 3/11  Programme has to demonstrate that its projects have a direct, positive and measurable impact in the programme territory  Focus of the programme on the remotest, most rural and sparsely populated region within the programme territory  Lack of consistent and timely statistical data on regional level

Selection of experts Annual Conference of the Northern Periphery and Arctic Programme 4/11 Experts have  detailed insight into the regional situation regarding innovativeness and internationalisation of SMEs, entrepreneurship, telemedicine, building energy performance or sustainable environmental management.  strong regional ties  well-established links with the end beneficiaries of project interventions (e.g., SMEs, health care workers, local public authorities, etc.)

Selection of regions Annual Conference of the Northern Periphery and Arctic Programme 5/11  Sample regions are selected based on the NUTS 3 statistical areas  The remotest and most sparsely populated regions within each country  One region from Scandinavia, one region from the British Isles, one region/country from the North-Atlantic Space  Capture the range of socio-economic conditions across the programme area by reference to indicator-specific statistical data  Balanced representation of the eight programme countries

Result indicator scoreboards Annual Conference of the Northern Periphery and Arctic Programme 6/11 + Composite indicator + contextual information on external factors likely to affect the composite indicator + anecdotal evidence of change = Indicator scoreboard

Criteria for choosing indicators Annual Conference of the Northern Periphery and Arctic Programme 7/11  ‘What we measure’ should be in line with ‘what we can influence’ as a cooperation programme, with a limited budget, and within a limited time period.  Wherever applicable, we should use existing definitions and methodologies, to warrant the indicators’ comparability with other European studies.  Our experts should be able to assess the indicators without too much guessing involved.

Indicator 2.2 “Internationalisation of SMEs“ Annual Conference of the Northern Periphery and Arctic Programme 8/11 Availability of business support programmes to facilitate access to new markets for regional SMEs [0;10]   Share of SMEs in the region engaged in one or more transboundary inter- enterprise cooperation [0;100%]  Uptake of business support programmes to facilitate access to new markets for regional SMEs [0;10]

Indicator 2.2 „Internationalisation of SMEs“ Annual Conference of the Northern Periphery and Arctic Programme 9/11

Baselines and targets Annual Conference of the Northern Periphery and Arctic Programme 10/11

Programme logical framework Annual Conference of the Northern Periphery and Arctic Programme 11/11